Vladimir Putin NYT op-ed sparks tension ahead of talks

In an op-ed, Putin denies the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against civilians. | AP Photo

“I think it’s pretty clear the whole purpose of that was to try to weaken our resolve and to try to make sure that we would not fulfill our pledge to conduct military action if we have to. So I think he was trying to, in his own way, weaken the United States in the effort to negotiate these issues,” former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on NBC’s “Today” on Thursday.

“He’s trying to maximize his leverage. He’s trying to get the American people to ultimately be further divided and, in doing so, have a stronger leverage point through his foreign minister in these negotiations,” said Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

“His argument is what, American exceptionalism forced Bashar al-Assad to unleash chemical weapons against women and children and kill them? Nice try,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on WTOP radio Thursday. “It’s a nice try to deflect responsibility, and sort of it’s what I might expect Vladimir Putin to say.”

“This is really a lot of bluster, but that said, we know and we’re clear-eyed about who Putin is and that Russia is an ally of the Assad regime,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said on CNN’s “New Day” on Thursday.

“First and foremost, I think we have to understand President Putin should be the last person to lecture the United States about our human values and our human rights and what we stand for,” Panetta said.

“I think it’s the height of hypocrisy for Putin at this point to lecture the United States of America,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told Fox News’s Greta van Susteren Wednesday night. “What he says in the op-ed, Greta, is that we have to go to the United Nations to seek basically a resolution to do anything in Syria. And let’s keep in mind who blocked us every time we have sought a resolution in the United Nations? It’s been the Russians and Chinese.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tried to turn the tables back on Putin.

”Hopefully, when Pres. #Putin says “we must not forget that God created us equal” he includes gays and lesbians in Russia,” Pelosi tweeted.

The White House, on the other hand, brushed off the op-ed, saying it demonstrated Putin’s commitment to getting rid of Syria’s weapons.

“President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad’s chemical weapons to international control, and ultimately destroying them,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. “The world will note whether Russia can follow through on that commitment.”

To a person, each of the op-ed’s critics said the potential for a diplomatic solution and chance of destroying Syria’s chemical weapons still must be pursued.

“It would be foolish to slam the door on diplomacy,” Menendez said. “We have to test it.”

State Department officials sought to downplay expectations for the talks, saying they were prepared to discuss a potential solution and hoped for a diplomatic solution, but were not naive about Russia.

“We are going into this eyes wide open, I can assure you of that,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a briefing on Wednesday.

Before departing for Geneva, Lavrov told media that there was an opportunity to achieve peace.

“I’m positive there is a chance for peace in Syria, and it cannot be missed. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss this issue with Secretary of State John Kerry,” Lavrov said, according to Interfax and RT.com.

Russia was not alone in trying to spin the media cycle its way, as Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview with Russian media that the motivation for agreeing to give up his country’s chemical weapons had nothing to do with the U.S. threat of force, as the White House and many lawmakers have been saying.

“Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The U.S. threats did not influence the decision,” Interfax quoted Assad as telling Russia’s state-run Rossiya-24 channel, according to Reuters.

Perhaps the biggest losers in the talks, the Syrian opposition released a video Wednesday night rejecting the potential agreement.

“We ask that the international community not be content with withdrawing chemical weapons, which are a criminal instrument, but to hold the perpetrator accountable and prosecute him at the International Criminal Court,” the leader of the Syrian National Council said in an online video, according to CBS News